Why the “Transsexual” vs. “Transgender” Debate is Irrelevant to the Fight for Equal Rights

I certainly have my own opinion on the “transsexual” vs. “transgender” debate that has ignited many a flame war on the internet over the last few months between those who want to separate our community based on those who have had or, at least, want to have, SRS, from everyone else, but I’m not going to express that here. Instead, I’m going to take a position that I’ve never seen expressed by anyone else, although some have come close. My position comes from my background as an attorney and my understanding of how anti-discrimination laws are written and are intended to operate.

Here’s what I know to be true: the dispute about who is transsexual and who isn’t is irrelevant to the fight for protections for transsexual, transgender, genderqueer and every other gender variant or gender nonconforming person in this country. Why? Because of how anti-discrimination laws are written for both practical and constitutional reasons.

Why anti-discrimination statutes don’t use terms like “transsexual” or “transgender”

If you look at federal or state anti-discrimination laws, you’ll see something very interesting. Although the primary purpose of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (including, Title VII, the federal ban on sex, race and other discrimination in employment) was to end discrimination against African-Americans, if you read it, you will see that nowhere does it say that it is illegal to discriminate against African-Americans. Instead, it says that it’s illegal to discriminate against anyone on the basis of race. There are two reasons for this approach.

First, using terms like African-American, Hispanic, Asian-Pacific Islander or Native American would lead to difficult, if not impossible, problems of determining in any given situation who fits into the relevant category. For example, I have a friend who identifies as both African-American and Native American. However, upon seeing her, many people may doubt that she is anything but “white.” So, where should the cut-off be? Should it 1/8 or 1/64 native or African-American blood, which is the cut-off used by some Native American tribes for tribal membership? Should it be how the person self-identifies? Or should it be whatever a court or jury, employer or shelter operator decides a particular person is? Our courts are already bogged down enough; we don’t need to compound that problem by introducing such difficult, and, ultimately, unnecessary, issues.

Using such vague categories leads us to the second reason why such categories aren’t used in anti-discrimination laws: statutes that are so ambiguous that they allow for arbitrary distinctions and enforcement are “void for vagueness” under the Due Process Clauses of state and federal constitutions. In other words, if whether one person is or isn’t protected depends on distinctions that can’t be made on any sort of objective basis, so that different people may reasonably interpret and apply the law in different ways, the statute is void and unenforceable.

In addition, there is another constitutional problem with using terms like African-American in anti-discrimination laws. If a statute protects only people who fall into one racial category, but not another, what you have done is enshrine in the law the very racial discrimination that you are trying to eliminate. That, in turn, makes the statute unconstitutional as a violation of equal protection under both state and federal constitutions. Therefore, for a statute meant to eliminate racial discrimination to be constitutional, you have to ban all racial discrimination, not just discrimination against the particular minority group or groups you are most concerned about protecting. That’s why the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other federal, state and local anti-discrimination laws make it illegal to discriminate on the basis of “race,” not particular racial categories. In other words, by protecting everyone against such discrimination, you avoid claims that the statue violates equal protection. The other benefit of that approach relates to the first problem discussed above. By using broad categories like “race,” you eliminate the need to decide what race someone belongs to.

For the same constitutional and practical reasons, the 1964 Civil Rights Act and other anti-discrimination laws don’t ban discrimination against women; instead, they ban discrimination against anyone, male or female, man or woman, based on “sex.”

Lastly, and, perhaps, most importantly, this approach fulfills one of the most important founding principles of our county: the belief in “equal justice for all,” not just the rich, not just whites, and not just men, and not just those who are poor, black or female.

How does this apply to protections for trans people?

What does all this mean when we start talking about protecting members of the trans community (however broadly or narrowly you want to define that community) from discrimination because of who we are? If anti-discrimination statutes intended to protect our community used terminology like “transsexual” or “transgender,” whenever any of us tried to invoke those protections, we would find ourselves in the same endless discussions about what those terms mean and who belongs in which category that have been taking place over the last several months, and which I believe are highly damaging to the goal of ensuring that we can all live our lives as who we are. Any such statute would, thus, be unconstitutional as both “void for vagueness” and a violation of equal protection. Why equal protection? Because everyone has a gender, gender identity and gender expression. Therefore, everyone should be protected against discrimination on that basis, since none of those characteristics are relevant to whether a particular person can do a particular job or should be allowed to buy a house or rent an apartment, regardless of how they identify. (As for the problem of bathrooms and other sex-segregated facilities, see below.)

Consequently, when you look at the proposed Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA) or any of the state or local statutes protecting our community from discrimination, you’ll see that most of them ban discrimination based on “gender identity” or “gender identity and expression,” not based on whether someone is “transsexual” or “transgender.” (A few subsume those categories under the definition of “sexual orientation” and then prohibit discrimination based on that term.) Under this approach, everyone is protected against discrimination based on their gender identity (i.e., the gender they identify as internally), regardless of whether or how that identity is expressed outwardly, and against discrimination based on their appearance, mannerisms and other behavior that are interpreted by others as an expression of gender, regardless of the person’s gender identity. In other words, everyone has a gender identity and a gender expression; therefore, everyone is protected against discrimination on that basis. Thus, the housewife who is too harried with housework and delivering kids to and from school to put on makeup or a dress can’t be kicked out of the grocery store for wearing her husband’s flannel shirt and buzz cutting her hair because she doesn’t have time to care for it (or simply likes it that way.) Similarly, the straight man who, for whatever reason, talks with a lisp or has what others see as effeminate gestures, and the straight woman who has a square jaw, large hands and feet and facial hair, are protected from discrimination simply because someone decides they’re not masculine or feminine enough to qualify as a man or a woman. Those people, too, suffer the effects of prejudice deriving from our society’s gender norms and deserve protection against discrimination just as much as trans people.

(One of the most famous cases relevant to protecting trans people against discrimination involved a cisgender woman, not a trans woman. In that case – Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, Ann Hopkins was a CPA working for the accounting firm who was eligible to become a partner. She was denied partnership, however, because some of the existing partners thought she was too aggressive for a woman, and needed to dress and act more femininely. When she got to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court held that Price Waterhouse had violated the ban on sex discrimination under Title VII by discriminating against her because she failed to comply with the “sex stereotypes” held by the existing partners for how women should look and act. This is the legal theory that has since been applied to protect trans people against discrimination under state and federal statutes that ban sex discrimination, even though they don’t explicitly bar discrimination based on gender identity or expression. The best and most recent example of this is Diane Schroer’s decisive victory over the Library of Congress.)

But what about bathrooms?

But what about sex-segregated facilities like bathrooms, locker rooms and showers? Personally, I wish we could do away with such segregation and people could just get over their discomfort and fear concerning their own and other people’s bodies and bodily functions. That’s not likely to happen in my lifetime, however, and sex-segregated facilities are going to continue to exist. So what do we do?

When we are challenged for entering a restroom, it’s because someone doesn’t think we look feminine or masculine enough, or, if you wish, because we look too masculine or feminine, for the sex that restroom is designated for. When those who oppose trans women’s use of women’s restrooms are asked why, they invariably respond with fears about men in the women’s room and the risk of rape or other sexual predation. When pressed, they will usually expand that by explaining that they don’t want anyone with a penis in the women’s room. But, of course, no one knows what genitalia any of us, cis or trans, carries when we use such spaces (at least, not in the absence of criminal activity or a close, personal relationship). Instead, people decide who is a man or a woman based on their perception of the other’s gender expression (clothes, makeup, mannerisms, etc.) and visible portions of the person’s body (face, hands, feet, etc.), and then make the assumption that this person must have a penis or a vagina and, therefore, is a man or a woman. It is this process that leads to masculine women and effeminate men, whether gay or straight, being confronted, ejected and even arrested for using a restroom for which, if anatomy is the determining factor, they are certainly qualified to use. It is also this process that results in post-op trans women, and, less frequently, trans men, being subjected to the same treatment even though a “panty check” would reveal the same genitalia as the intended users of that space. Finally, it is because this process results in even post-op trans people being excluded from sex-segregated facilities to which their genitalia should give them access that limiting trans people’s access to such facilities based on whether they have had genital surgery, or plan to do so at some point in the future, is unworkable. (It also grants doctors, psychiatrists, therapists and/or the government the power to determine who is and is not “woman” or “man” enough to use such facilities, a power I am not willing to cede to anyone.)

So, again, what do we do about sex-segregated facilities? Here’s my proposal: If the statutes we pass bar discrimination based on gender identity and/or expression, then it is unlawful to deny someone access to a bathroom, for example, simply because someone thinks that person’s gender expression isn’t masculine or feminine enough for that space. In other words, if someone is presenting as a woman, she has the right to use the women’s room, and vice versa for men’s rooms, regardless of whether zie is post-op, pre-op or non-op, and regardless of whether zie identifies as transsexual, transgender, genderqueer, crossdresser, drag queen or whatever other gender category zie cares to claim. Since, barring illegal activity or a close, personal relationship, no one knows what’s in another person’s pants, if it’s wrong to exclude a butch, cisgender woman from a women’s room, then it’s equally wrong to exclude anyone expressing hir gender as a woman from that same space. In either case, the exclusion would be based not on the person’s actual anatomy, but on someone else’s assumptions and prejudice about who is “really” a woman. Our country has always opposed unequal treatment based on personal assumptions or prejudices about who is and isn’t entitled to the benefits of our society, and I see no reason that we should deviate from that principle when it comes to sex-segregated facilities. (Of course, the same arguments apply to men’s rooms and people who present as men.)

Okay, you say, that takes care of bathrooms. What about showers and locker rooms where nudity sometimes takes place? Here, I believe the best solution is that proposed in ENDA, since it gives proper respect both to concerns about personal privacy and to each individual’s gender identity. As introduced, ENDA contains a specific exclusion that provides that an employer’s “denial of access to shared shower or dressing facilities in which being seen unclothed is unavoidable” would not violate that statute, “provided that the employer provides reasonable access to adequate facilities that are not inconsistent with the employee’s gender identity” at the time the person was hired or as established by a later notice to the employer “that the employee has undergone or is undergoing gender transition.” (ENDA, Sec.8(a)(3); my italics.) In other words, employers could continue to maintain sex-segregated locker rooms and showers. However, in determining who is allowed access to the men’s or women’s facilities, the employer must recognize the employee’s announced gender identity with the sole exception that, where nudity is “unavoidable,” the employer may require someone whose presence may make other employees uncomfortable to use separate facilities, but only if those separate facilities conform to the person’s gender identity. (In other words, an employer couldn’t make a trans woman use the men’s locker room, or vice versa. Note also, that this could be applied to cisgender, not just trans, men and women. When butch women and effeminate men start getting excluded from the men’s and women’s locker rooms, I suspect that we’ll win over quite a few allies to the idea that segregation based on someone else’s perception of our gender expression is patently ridiculous.)

(Some people reading this may wonder how this principle applies with respect to things like dress codes. Basically, if an employee is hired as a man, ENDA allows the employer to require him to conform to the dress code for men until such time as the employee informs the employer that zie is transitioning to female, or vice versa. (Sec. 8(a)(5).) After the employee transitions to living full time in hir affirmed gender, zie must then conform to the dress code for that gender. This scheme is actually quite elegant and workable in practice. In addition, it has the advantage of not requiring the transitioning employee to prove to the employer that zie is “really” a woman or vice versa by providing a letter from a doctor or therapist, or proving zie has undergone SRS, hormone therapy or any other medical treatment. Instead, it allows the employee complete freedom to work as the person zie knows hirself to be, without interference or second-guessing by anyone else.)

So, there it is. It isn’t necessary to determine whether someone is transsexual, transgender or anything else to provide legal protections for everyone, cis or trans, against arbitrary discrimination because zie doesn’t fit someone else’s concepts of who is “really” a woman or a man, or to determine who can use sex-segregated bathrooms and other facilities. Therefore, I, for one, intend to ignore that debate and get on with the business of enacting fair and just legal protections that allow all of us to simply be who we are.

This makes a lot of sense, especially in terms of the legal language used. I don’t think very many people should be arguing the fact that the specific identity terms we use should have bearing on how laws are written (the vaguer the better in many cases). These distinctions are often ones “we” (members of the trans* community) impose upon ourselves.

I do wonder though about the inclusion of non-binary gender identities in the bathroom/locker room/dress code part. How can these identities be accommodated when neither “male” nor “female” are comfortable labels?

How to handle non-binary gender people is definitely where some of the biggest challenges may lie. Basically, when it comes to sex-segregated bathrooms, people simply have to lighten up and accept that, if someone thinks they belong in the women’s or the men’s room, then they do, and they have no grounds to object. Or, if they do, then the solution is for them to leave and wait for the person they are uncomfortable with to finish and leave, rather than forcing that person to wait or leave. After all, non-binary gender people don’t have a problem with who they are. The problem lies with those who wish to impose their conception of what and who is acceptable that is the problem. Thus, it’s their problem to solve in a way that doesn’t force the rest of us to conform to their views.

As for showers & locker rooms where nudity is unavoidable, I think giving the employer, gym owner, etc. the option to provide, and ask someone to use, separate facilities that are consistent with the person’s gender identity and expression is a reasonable accommodation for everyone, trans, cis, genderqueer, etc., along the gender spectrum.

“After all, non-binary gender people don’t have a problem with who they are. The problem lies with those who wish to impose their conception of what and who is acceptable that is the problem.”

Brilliant. Of course, I am realistic in that we can’t change other people’s perceptions of us (at least not instantaneously). So yes, while other people are the ones with the problem, we nevertheless have a problem in our hands, right now: discrimination.

In short, non-binary identities open up a whole new can of worms socially, linguistically, and legally, and we’ve barely begun to scratch the surface with traditional TS issues, so we have a long way to go.

I appreciate this entire essay. I had been searching for the right words to express the uselessness of those debates, and you laid it all out very clearly and reasonably.

I have found this posting to be fair, well crafted, and highly informative. I find that you have presented a good proof of what we and a few others have been saying for quite some time. Should others choose to remove their heads from a dark and stinky place, and learn to think, we will gain the vocal volume we need to see many changes in the social paradigm. Here’s to you, Abby!

We have exactly the same challenges here in Australia and I appreciate the clarity of this discussion. I would like to ask for your comments/approach to including the people who are Intersex. In my view they suffer many of the same discriminations and some others that are unique to their circumstances. Our aim should be to see all encompassing and inclusive equal rights enshrined in the laws of our respective countries.

Jade, at least in situations like employment and housing, I believe that discrimination against intersex people arises from the same causes as for transgender or transsexual people, that is, other people’s perception that intersex people don’t conform to their expectations of what a “man” or “woman” should act or look like, and/or what genitalia they should have to go along with their gender presentation. Thus, anti-discrimination laws that protect against discrimination because of some characteristic related to a person’s gender, in other words, based on gender identity or expression, protect intersex people too. Indeed, such laws even protect the straight, cisgender woman who others think is too masculine to be a woman, and the straight, cisgender man who others think is too feminine to be a man.

At the same time, there are some issues that are specific to intersex people. Those necessarily have to be addressed separately. When it comes to discrimination because of a person’s failure to conform to societal norms of sex and gender, however, I believe we’re all in this together and can, and should, all be protected by the same laws.

OK, one last time…I thought when I saw this on Toni d’Orsay’s website that it was her piece. Here’s my response as posted there and several other places:

Because I think this issue is the critical issue facing the trans community, I am going to re-post the response that I posted on Toni’s site here. Please bear in mind that I mistaken refer here to a reference to the ADA in your article which was actually made in an earlier article on Toni’s site.

Thank you for taking up this topic. This is the very thing that I have made the focus of my activism, and why lately I have been spending so much time trying to point out that all this political in-fighting in the trans community is so irrelevant and counter-productive. Concatenating the existing laws, we can see that in the areas of sex and gender, the already existing legislation that is in force today covers: sex; sexual orientation (to which I also would like to see added “affectational orientation”; gender; or, gender identity, appearance, expression, or behavior, regardless of whether or not traditionally associated with a person’s sex or gender as assigned at birth.

That covers everyone, and obviates any need for us to argue about who is transsexual and who is transgender. However, the sad fact of the matter is that the real fight is about, and I know I keep pointing this out, so forgive me, as Barney Frank is famous for saying, “penises in women’s showers”.

The bathroom argument is usually brought up, but I think that most people possess enough intelligence to understand that women’s restrooms, in general, contain individual, locking, semi-enclosed stalls, and that laws against public indecency or obscenity already cover the possibility of lewd displays outside of those stalls. If your genitals are showing outside a locked stall, you’re quite simply doing it wrong. The bathroom argument is really being used as a proxy for the real issue of sex-segregated spaces where nudity is practically unavoidable: showers, lockers rooms, and dressing rooms are the primary venues.

Like you, I think the ideal situation would be that we do away entirely with sex-segregated facilities and that people simply get over their insecurities, but I don’t think that’s actually going to happen, if for no other reason than that the mating game demands that we each be given enough privacy from our chosen affections in order to compose ourselves to our best advantage.

The solution, as I see it, is even better than that which you describe above as it was written into ENDA. For you see, that phrase in ENDA creates another situation which has already been found illegal in this country, “separate, but equal”. Forcing trans people into a ghetto is an attack on a suspect class that cannot be tolerated. The best answer, ironically, is provided by the example of the very same Americans With Disabilities Act you noted, above. As an aside, I wonder if the person you spoke with about her lack of knowledge concerning the transsexual exclusion from the ADA is the person I think it likely to be.

The answer is not to exclude trans people. The answer is to exclude people who are uncomfortable with equality. By providing fully-private, single-person facilities for any person who needs or simply desires it, or for those who just cannot stomach sharing facilities with their fellow men and women because they are uncomfortable with the natural variation in human bodies, we solve the problem with a penstroke, just as we made it illegal to exclude people with disabilities from such facilities with the ADA.

Whichever path we take, the ENDA paradigm or the one I suggest, there are going to be complaints over the government forcing establishments to spend money upgrading their facilities as a result of the new law, but these are the exact same complaints we heard during the push to pass ADA. ADA has now been in force for over 20 years, and no one gives it much thought anymore.

The ADA paradigm allowed businesses large exceptions for existing facilities, but simply required new facilities to accommodate all. This is exactly the model that a new gender-inclusive anti-discrimination law should follow. Eventually, the newer facilities will take the place of the older ones, and newer facilities will inevitably have the advantage of being able to draw from a wider customer base, making them more competitive than those who do not upgrade.

This can be looked at as a jobs bill, creating a huge market for every profession involved in the building trades, from interior designers all the way down to tradesmen and laborers.

When you look at it that way, then we can let Jesse Helms rot in his grave, and laugh at how we easily side-stepped his transsexual exclusion clause, using the law he poisoned to catapult us into a new era of equal protection.

This is an issue that I’m encountering now. I just started a new job last week and was informed by HR that I will be required to use the men’s facilities until I am post-op. The decision is based on state law that says I have to use the restroom which matches my physical anatomy even though I have already had an orchiectomy, changed my social security information and driver’s license gender marker to female. As far as the state and federal governments are concerned, I’m a female right up until I go to use a women’s restroom. Then, according to Texas law, I’m in violation of the law. So all of my new co-workers are to accept me as a female, and as instructed by HR, treat me just like anyone else, and ignore the odd sight of a female entering the men’s restroom all day.

Jenna, it sounds to me like someone is misinterpreting the law to justify their own bigotry. I recommend you contact a Texas attorney familiar with trans issues. The only one I know of for sure is Phyllis Frye. You can contact her through her website: http://www.liberatinglaw.com/. If she or someone else from her firm can’t help you, or you can’t afford her, contact me again. I’m part of a listserv of trans attorneys, so I may be able to find someone else who can help you. Good luck.

What may be worse is that my HR rep is also a licensed attorney in the state of Texas. Phyllis did the legal work for my court order to change my name and gender marker legally. She does have someone on staff that specializes in employment issues so once I can afford it, I’ll be making that appointment.

Please do not repost this or any of my other posts on your site in their entirely. You are, however, welcome to post links to my home page and to specific posts and to post limited excerpts from my posts on your site along with your own comments or analysis. I prefer that people come here if they wish to read my posts in full.

I have stated many times that if anything needed to change it had to be the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But lo and behold as long as the Conservative Republicans and all of our Religious Right have any say in the matter you will not see changes in the Civil Rights Act and that our activists will continuously argue and pursue ENDA and that is not where the change needs to start. And when the bigger picture is not addressed then you will always have the arguments of seperation and division.

What you say of restrooms may indeed be true, but it is also what makes them an issue far more complex than can be addressed in a simple paragraph, and saying it, especially in a public forum, more opens the can of worms than leads me to say, “that takes care of bathrooms.” Restrooms are a far bigger issue for the greater society than they are for us, and for us, the “bathroom issue” is far, far more significant in terms of how it is used as a political weapon against us than it is in terms of the practical matter of taking a pee. For the trans community, the issue of restrooms isn’t so much one of if people will let us walk into the one that’s right for us as it is if someone else is going to use our walking into one as a fear tactic to keep us from being able to make a living, keep a roof over our heads, clothes on our backs, and food in our mouths.

In saying that protection people from discrimination based on gender identity and potentially expression will by extrapolation allow us to use the restroom of our choice, you also as an inavoidable consequence give a handy weapon to our opponents of being able to label any proposed trans-rights legislation as “a bathroom bill”. I’m not saying you’re wrong in your analysis, but only that your analysis, once publicly expressed and clearly stated, raises bigger issues than it puts to bed. How then do we stop those antagonistic forces far more driven by genuine hate than legitimate concern, from exploiting yours or similar analyses to fear monger the masses against us? Discussing one forces a discussion of the other.

Assuming you are indeed correct that protecting gender identity should lead to protecting liberty in choice of restrooms on the basis that it is one’s assumptions about genitalia based on presentation that are at issue, coupled with a reflection on the amazing effectiveness restroom based fear mongering has been in crushing attempts to expand our rights, could it be that even if we got ENDA or similar legislation passed at a national level, we would then enter a phase of fighting state based efforts to define legal sex based on genitalia? (Yes, that was all one sentence.) I don’t think our opponents are going to quietly lay down and take it just because a federal law was passed. It has never happened that way with progress in minority rights before. Could more laws get passed mandating restroom use based on legal sex? Could more and more places start requiring SRS before sex could be legally changed? Could laws be passed that would force us to submit to genital inspections to change gender markers? Could passing legal protections for gender identity lead us down a path where this TS separatist crowd actually begin to get their way and only post-op trans people will be given the full rights of members of their identified gender? Could it be even remotely possible that by saying that this nutty TG/TS fight is irrelevant, you set us down a path of someday making it intensely so?

That was an awful lot of “what if’s”, Erica. Your speculations about what might happen concern strategic issues that are beyond the scope of my essay. Consequently, I decline to accept your invitation to speculate with you.

I do, however, have this comment: You ascribe to me far too much power and originality when you imply that my essay is the first to raise the possibility that gender identity anti-discrimination statutes could affect traditional limits on access to sex-segregated facilities, and, subsequently, lead to all manner of horrific backlashes. The first such statute was enacted decades ago, and I would imagine that the “bathroom meme” as been used by the opponents of such statutes for at least as long. (In fact, it was used to help defeat the Equal Rights Amendment in the ’70’s and early ’80’s.)

In addition, I’m sure if you looked you could find numerous position papers and other publications from attorneys at the Alliance Defense Fund and similar groups that agree with my analysis and that have been around much longer than last Tuesday. Furthermore, despite the vehemence with which our opponents argue the “bathroom issue,” we have, in fact, been quite successful in enacting such statutes (3 states in the last few months) and in defeating referenda filed to overturn similar local ordinances. So, no, I don’t much fear that my essay will result in the dire consequences you describe.

Bravo……….. I have lived as Daphiny since I was 14, I am now 47, I have never gone back to living as a boy, I was never a man which is why I say boy… This pi$$ing contest of “Im better than you because I have this and you dont ” is nothing but immature transies trying to prove themselves or showing their insecurities.. Im sorry if that sounds harsh, but as I have said a thousands times, WE FIGHT THE WORLD FIGHTING ONE ANOTHER JUST HELPS THEM WIN………………. hugs to all Daphiny

As to some of the “simplier” questions I saw here and there… I had my NAME changed in 82 along with MY GENDER IDENTIFIER, legally, its been female since I was a baby …. I dont think most try hard enough to follow through, I have known many SRS that still had ID that said male or had their male names…. I have never in my life had an issue of what bathroom to go in, of course I go to the female restroom, thats where I belong ….I think many times people confuse GENDER IDENTITY, there isnt any surgery in the world that is going to make you complete or happy unless you are complete and know who you are within, its deeper than just your body or even your mind, its part of your soul, I have known since I was a baby, as most will say, I am a NON-OP by choice, a decision I came to at 30 after seeing so many of my friends go crazy or militant, some went back to women, which if thats their thing cool, some got religion and damned everything they did to themselves.. It was rare that I ever saw a success so I was forced to learn to love me for who and what I was, and that was a fantastic thing, its not that Im running around using it, its just there, no biggie. My partner of 10 yrs doesnt mind hes secure with who he is and life is fantastic, so please give it all lots of thought, all the money in the world cant buy you happiness ……… Or at least thats my opinion ………… Daphiny